3 ms·

I see what you're saying, but you also have to acknowledge what the article is saying. You could also "cycle" by finding a used, broken $90 bike. You could do "

I see what you're saying, but you also have to acknowledge what the article is saying. You could also "cycle" by finding a used, broken $90 bike. You could do "obstacle courses" by setting up abandoned garbage in a field for $0. For all three of the sports, this is not representative of most of what the average invested long-distance athlete spends or how they interact with the sport. For example, if you run alot you're definitely going through more shoes than 1 pair a year to not risk injury, so increase that to $400-$500 / yr. Set aside $100-$500/yr for races. Don't forget $100-$200/night for the hotels, and a few hundred for travel and food. A good watch to help you improve your training is $400-$700. You don't want to chafe so get good running equipment and keep it up-to-date ($300/yr). When you become competitive, you might want to push yourself further with group training sessions or coaching ($50-500/mo). Your nutrition will be very important when you run far so account for $300-$1000/yr in extra groceries, nutrition items, sports drinks, gels, etc. Now with just these we're easily over $10K/yr total costs, for just running. I won't even dig into cycling. I totally agree running is low cost and low barrier to get into. But as you start investing more time in it, joining the local community, participating in races, making friends in the sport, and setting more aggressive goals, you find the costs do go up. Yes, this is obviously an extreme example, but so was yours. I hope you can see how the average somewhat-invested runner easily spends close to what the article quotes.

megaman8 8y ago
but it doesn't have to be that way. even here in SF, we have DSG races that only cost 5$ for a 5K or 10K. Sure there's no timing chip or free bananas or trophies, but you get your time and a chance to compete against others. As for shoes, I've been running 5-10 miles per week in the same pair for over 2 years and haven't worn them out yet. Yes, Nike/special performance ones do wear out much faster and fall apart in less then 1000 miles. But, if you get a cheaper pair from target or other department stores, they'll last a lot longer.
- chrisfosterelli 8y ago
  > but it doesn't have to be that way Of course, as I mentioned it's a really extreme example used to demonstrate that, even being frugal on 9/10 of those, you still hit the amount mentioned in the article. > same pair for over 2 years and haven't worn them out yet I think it's important to understand that "needs replacement" is not the same as "falling apart". It's essentially an industry-wide recommendation to replace running shoes between 500km-800km. At that point, my shoes always look functional, and I have pairs I've continued to use for years for other, non-running activities, but they without a doubt feel "dead" and aren't providing proper support for long runs. The shoes might work fine, and at 10mi a week you might not even ever notice a problem until they start actually falling apart, but you are increasing your risk of injury.
habosa 8y ago
I guess the key is I'm not training. Or competing. I'm just running to stay fit and to clear my mind. I really think that given my goals (or lack thereof) my example is not extreme.

megaman8 8y ago

but it doesn't have to be that way. even here in SF, we have DSG races that only cost 5$ for a 5K or 10K. Sure there's no timing chip or free bananas or trophies, but you get your time and a chance to compete against others. As for shoes, I've been running 5-10 miles per week in the same pair for over 2 years and haven't worn them out yet. Yes, Nike/special performance ones do wear out much faster and fall apart in less then 1000 miles. But, if you get a cheaper pair from target or other department stores, they'll last a lot longer.

chrisfosterelli 8y ago
> but it doesn't have to be that way Of course, as I mentioned it's a really extreme example used to demonstrate that, even being frugal on 9/10 of those, you still hit the amount mentioned in the article. > same pair for over 2 years and haven't worn them out yet I think it's important to understand that "needs replacement" is not the same as "falling apart". It's essentially an industry-wide recommendation to replace running shoes between 500km-800km. At that point, my shoes always look functional, and I have pairs I've continued to use for years for other, non-running activities, but they without a doubt feel "dead" and aren't providing proper support for long runs. The shoes might work fine, and at 10mi a week you might not even ever notice a problem until they start actually falling apart, but you are increasing your risk of injury.

habosa 8y ago

I guess the key is I'm not training. Or competing. I'm just running to stay fit and to clear my mind. I really think that given my goals (or lack thereof) my example is not extreme.